TPO33
The reading passage deals with the issue of the purpose and meaning of carved stone balls. The professor's talk focuses on the same topic. However, she believes that none of the theories stated in the reading is convincing. And in the lecture, The professor makes three specific points to back up her point of view.
In the first place, even though the reading passage suggests that those carved stone balls are used as weapons when people go hunting or fighting, the professor claims in the lecture that this explanation is groundless. That is because weapons found are cracked into pieces in that they were worn by people, which means the surface of those balls should not be intact as they were found. Apparently, the professor's argument disproves its counterpart in the reading.
In the second place, contrary to the statement in the reading that carved stone balls act as the unit to measure or weigh things, the professor argues that it turns out to be inadequate. Then she supports this point with the fact that there are various types of stone balls that have different density, and the two sides of one single ball also contain different kinds of rock which are unequal in density. In other words, those balls just couldn't be the standard.
Further, the professor states that carved stone balls cannot be designed without utility while the author of the reading claims that they served as a substance to show people's social status. The professor indicates that this claim is unwarranted by pointing out that some stone balls are too simple on decoration to be specially designed things and they are not even found in graves where special stuff to show classes of dead people should be buried.
To sum up, the professor precisely discovers the flaws in the reading passage and successfully reveals that the arguments in the passage are incorrect.
Grammar and spelling errors:
Line 3, column 405, Rule ID: POSSESIVE_APOSTROPHE[1]
Message: Possible typo: apostrophe is missing. Did you mean 'professors'' or 'professor's'?
Suggestion: professors'; professor's
...act as they were found. Apparently, the professors argument disproves its counterpart in t...
^^^^^^^^^^
Line 5, column 441, Rule ID: EN_CONTRACTION_SPELLING
Message: Possible spelling mistake found
Suggestion: couldn't
...nsity. In other words, those balls just couldnt be the standard. Further, the profes...
^^^^^^^
Transition Words or Phrases used:
also, apparently, first, however, if, second, so, then, while, in other words, to sum up, in the first place, in the second place
Attributes: Values AverageValues Percentages(Values/AverageValues)% => Comments
Performance on Part of Speech:
To be verbs : 19.0 10.4613686534 182% => OK
Auxiliary verbs: 3.0 5.04856512141 59% => OK
Conjunction : 7.0 7.30242825607 96% => OK
Relative clauses : 18.0 12.0772626932 149% => OK
Pronoun: 29.0 22.412803532 129% => Less pronouns wanted
Preposition: 43.0 30.3222958057 142% => OK
Nominalization: 5.0 5.01324503311 100% => OK
Performance on vocabulary words:
No of characters: 1551.0 1373.03311258 113% => OK
No of words: 315.0 270.72406181 116% => OK
Chars per words: 4.92380952381 5.08290768461 97% => OK
Fourth root words length: 4.21286593061 4.04702891845 104% => OK
Word Length SD: 2.38042322162 2.5805825403 92% => OK
Unique words: 166.0 145.348785872 114% => OK
Unique words percentage: 0.526984126984 0.540411800872 98% => OK
syllable_count: 460.8 419.366225166 110% => OK
avg_syllables_per_word: 1.5 1.55342163355 97% => OK
A sentence (or a clause, phrase) starts by:
Pronoun: 3.0 3.25607064018 92% => OK
Article: 9.0 8.23620309051 109% => OK
Subordination: 1.0 1.25165562914 80% => OK
Conjunction: 2.0 1.51434878587 132% => OK
Preposition: 4.0 2.5761589404 155% => OK
Performance on sentences:
How many sentences: 13.0 13.0662251656 99% => OK
Sentence length: 24.0 21.2450331126 113% => OK
Sentence length SD: 67.9687536982 49.2860985944 138% => OK
Chars per sentence: 119.307692308 110.228320801 108% => OK
Words per sentence: 24.2307692308 21.698381199 112% => OK
Discourse Markers: 9.92307692308 7.06452816374 140% => OK
Paragraphs: 5.0 4.09492273731 122% => OK
Language errors: 2.0 4.19205298013 48% => OK
Sentences with positive sentiment : 3.0 4.33554083885 69% => OK
Sentences with negative sentiment : 5.0 4.45695364238 112% => OK
Sentences with neutral sentiment: 5.0 4.27373068433 117% => OK
What are sentences with positive/Negative/neutral sentiment?
Coherence and Cohesion:
Essay topic to essay body coherence: 0.328221694737 0.272083759551 121% => OK
Sentence topic coherence: 0.110116209918 0.0996497079465 111% => OK
Sentence topic coherence SD: 0.0836645674045 0.0662205650399 126% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence: 0.167951680541 0.162205337803 104% => OK
Paragraph topic coherence SD: 0.107175061605 0.0443174109184 242% => More connections among paragraphs wanted.
Essay readability:
automated_readability_index: 13.9 13.3589403974 104% => OK
flesch_reading_ease: 55.58 53.8541721854 103% => OK
smog_index: 3.1 5.55761589404 56% => Smog_index is low.
flesch_kincaid_grade: 11.5 11.0289183223 104% => OK
coleman_liau_index: 11.55 12.2367328918 94% => OK
dale_chall_readability_score: 8.34 8.42419426049 99% => OK
difficult_words: 70.0 63.6247240618 110% => OK
linsear_write_formula: 7.5 10.7273730684 70% => OK
gunning_fog: 11.6 10.498013245 110% => OK
text_standard: 12.0 11.2008830022 107% => OK
What are above readability scores?
---------------------
Rates: 85.0 out of 100
Scores by essay e-grader: 25.5 Out of 30
---------------------
Note: the e-grader does NOT examine the meaning of words and ideas. VIP users will receive further evaluations by advanced module of e-grader and human graders.